JUDGMENT Thomas, C.J. and Ghulam Hasan, J. - (1) Sukhram Singh, caste Thakur, aged 52 years; (2) Uttam Singh caste Thakur aged 60 years, (3) Bal Singh caste Thakur aged 50 years, (4) Sheopal Singh caste Thakur, aged 17 or 18 years, (5) Bisram Singh caste Thakur, aged 14 years, (6) Ginga Pasi aged 35 years, and (7) Sheonath Pasi aged 30 years, were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Unao under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 I.P.C. He convicted Sukhram Singh and Sheonath u/s 148 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to three years' rigorous imprisonment and the remaining accused u/s 147 I.P.C., and sentenced them to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He also convicted all the accused u/s 302/149 I.P.C. Sukhram Singh was sentenced to death and the remaining accused were sentenced to transportation for life. The accused have submitted their appeals, and the learned Judge has submitted the record for confirmation of the death sentence of Sukhram Singh * [After discussing the facts and the evidence their Lordships proceed:--] We, therefore, after a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence, and the circumstances, are of opinion that Rajnu Singh, Himman and Ali Raza who are eye-witnesses, and Faqiray, who saw the dead body being taken away, must be of Sieved. 2. The only case in our opinion which deserves consideration is that of Bisram Singh. He is a lad of fourteen years, and the note of the learned Judge shows that he looks fourteen. We do not for a moment believe that the prosecution witnesses have falsely implicated him. There is no doubt that he was on the scene and the witnesses saw him. But we are inclined to take the view that he did not join the conspiracy to murder Surat Singh. When he saw the other accused going armed' with spears, kanta and lathis, he may have followed them, more out of curiosity than for actually taking part in the assault. No particular act is assigned to him. We, therefore, give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept his appeal and direct his acquittal. We up-hold the conviction of the remaining six accused, namely, Sukhram Singh, Uttam Singh, Bal Singh, Sheopal Singh, Ganga and Sheonath. The assault was premeditated and cowardly, and there is no doubt that Surat Singh was murdered on account of the strained relations which exited between him and the accused. We up-hold the conviction of the remaining six accused, namely, Sukhram Singh, Uttam Singh, Bal Singh, Sheopal Singh, Ganga and Sheonath. The assault was premeditated and cowardly, and there is no doubt that Surat Singh was murdered on account of the strained relations which exited between him and the accused. The head was cut and thrown into the canal to prevent the identity of the body. We are of opinion that there are no extenuating circumstances, and we are indeed surprised that the learned Judge did not sentence Bal Singh and Sheonath, accused, also to death. Ganga and Sheonath, as we have said, are Pasis. Either they were engaged for the occasion, or as is alleged by the prosecution, that Sheonath is the servant of Bal Singh and he was called there by Bal Singh. There is consistent evidence that Shednath was armed with a spear. There is also clear evidence that Bal Singh was on bad terms with Surat Singh, and the last quarrel was fifteen days before his murder, when the deceased blocked the passage between his house and that of Bal Singh. It is regrettable that the Crown has not applied for enhancement of sentence against Bal Singh and Sheonath. 3. The learned Judge seems to have a peculiar notion about passing sentences in this case, and it is necessary for his future guidance that he should be disillusioned. He has relied on certain observations made by Justice Crump in a Bombay case. He has given a quotation from the Commentary of the Law of Crimes by Ratan Lal, in which it is said-- "the infliction of six sentences of death in one and the same case is rather apt to fail of the effect which such sentences would otherwise have. It is possible that a wholesale penalty of this kind does not in effect act as a deterrent, but rather shocks the public conscience which is a thing that should be avoided at all costs. It is also usual in a case of this kind to distinguish between the cases of the accused persons where a large number have been found guilty of murder". 4. If the learned Judge had carefully considered these observations, he himself would have come to the conclusion that at least the cases of Bal Singh and Sheonath Were distinguishable and they should have been hanged. 4. If the learned Judge had carefully considered these observations, he himself would have come to the conclusion that at least the cases of Bal Singh and Sheonath Were distinguishable and they should have been hanged. This no doubt, he has done in ignorance of a decision of this Court, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 701 of 1929 (Bharose v. K.E.) decided on the 17th January, 1930, by the Hon. Sir Louis Stuart C.J. and Raza J. In this case the Sessions Judge of Fyzabad had sentenced five persons to death u/s 302 I.P.C., and that order was upheld by the Bench of this Court, and the sentences of death passed on the five persons were confirmed. The mercy petitions of these five persons were dismissed by the Governor-in-Council, and the Governor General-in-Council, and the sentences passed were left to their operation. We may remind the learned Judge that in the Chauri Chaura case (K.E. v. Abdulla, Appeal No. 51 of 1923), nineteen persons were sentenced to death by the High Court at Allahabad though we concede that was a very bad case. The learned Judge has relied on the case of Sheo Prasad v. K.E. 1941 O.A. 943 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 354 (1941 O.A. 943) and has observed that "Youth has always been considered to be a circumstance justifying the lesser penalty. Further, where the offender has acted under the instigation of another and is not proved to have taken principal part in committing the murder, he also has been awarded the lesser sentence." 5. These observations do not apply to the cases of Bal Singh who is fifty years of age, and Sheonath, who according to the Judge, is twenty three or twenty-four. 6. A Judge is bound to pass a sentence of death on a person convicted of murder unless there are substantial reasons for failing to do so. The reason for passing the lesser sentence must be adequate and express, and in our opinion the learned Judge has not given adequate reasons for not passing the death sentences at least on Bal Singh, Uttam Singh and Sheonath, if not against the others. In the case before us we are prepared to assume that some of the accused had no direct motive for committing the murder, and probably were only participating to oblige Sukhram Singh, Bal Singh and Sheonath. In the case before us we are prepared to assume that some of the accused had no direct motive for committing the murder, and probably were only participating to oblige Sukhram Singh, Bal Singh and Sheonath. But they, nevertheless, took part in this cold-blooded, premeditated and cowardly murder. Cases often come before us in which it appears that-human life is considered lightly. In the districts of Oudh, there is little compunction among many men in participating in a murder to oblige a friend. As many of these murders can only be committed by a gang, it is obvious that too much leniency should not be exercised in favour of persons whose participation alone makes it possible that the crime could be committed, and perhaps it was for this reason the two Pasi accused in this case joined Sukhram Singh. 7. We accordingly dismiss the appeals of all the accused except Bisram Singh, uphold the convictions and sentences, and confirm the sentence of death passed on Sukhram Singh and direct that he be banged by the neck till he be dead. Bisram Singh is given the benefit of the doubt and he is acquired. He shall be released.